Experience. Most cops that are assigned an area to patrol can spot law breakers easily after they are in the area for a year or two. It's a return to the old beat cop who knew everyone in his "neighborhood". Today it's called Community based policing. Many years ago a relative who was a cop told me he could stop 5 cars and get at least 3 guns and 2 would be holding drugs for sale. Since those practices were stopped by liberal pols the incidents of shootings and drub use have skyrocketed.

Experience. Most cops that are assigned an area to patrol can spot law breakers easily after they are in the area for a year or two. It's a return to the old beat cop who knew everyone in his "neighborhood". Today it's called Community based policing. Many years ago a relative who was a cop told me he could stop 5 cars and get at least 3 guns and 2 would be holding drugs for sale. Since those practices were stopped by liberal pols the incidents of shootings and drub use have skyrocketed.

I love how you guys rally around cops when it fits your political narrative. I'd love to see how you treat them if you blow hot once. The area I grew up in was considered to be somewhat 'out of control' by the state a few years back. Do you suppose they sent the type of 'beat cop' you are describing?? Hell no. They sent 2 a-hole HP's. Is our state run by liberals? I think not.

How does your senseless story apply to a situation where there is a large influx of people due to an event? How will Trump's stop and frisk plan be carried out there?

Experience. Most cops that are assigned an area to patrol can spot law breakers easily after they are in the area for a year or two. It's a return to the old beat cop who knew everyone in his "neighborhood". Today it's called Community based policing. Many years ago a relative who was a cop told me he could stop 5 cars and get at least 3 guns and 2 would be holding drugs for sale. Since those practices were stopped by liberal pols the incidents of shootings and drub use have skyrocketed.

I love how you guys rally around cops when it fits your political narrative. I'd love to see how you treat them if you blow hot once. The area I grew up in was considered to be somewhat 'out of control' by the state a few years back. Do you suppose they sent the type of 'beat cop' you are describing?? Hell no. They sent 2 a-hole HP's. Is our state run by liberals? I think not.

How does your senseless story apply to a situation where there is a large influx of people due to an event? How will Trump's stop and frisk plan be carried out there?

Contrary to Lester "Don't Give Up Your Day Job" Holt's assertion in last night's debate, stop & frisk is not unconstitutional. The Warren Court, which was one of the most liberal of Supreme Courts, held in Terry vs Ohio (8-1) that stop & frisk was an exception to the exclusionary rule which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures for gathering evidence but not searches and seizures for other purposes like the prevention of crime or personal protection of police.

Contrary to Lester "Don't Give Up Your Day Job" Holt's assertion in last night's debate, stop & frisk is not unconstitutional. The Warren Court, which was one of the most liberal of Supreme Courts, held in Terry vs Ohio (8-1) that stop & frisk was an exception to the exclusionary rule which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures for gathering evidence but not searches and seizures for other purposes like the prevention of crime or personal protection of police.

The right to frisk someone has to be based on "specific and articulable fact", not a hunch. Not a gut feeling. Certainly not skin color. So again, what was he basing his stop and frisk program on?

I love how you guys rally around cops when it fits your political narrative. I'd love to see how you treat them if you blow hot once. The area I grew up in was considered to be somewhat 'out of control' by the state a few years back. Do you suppose they sent the type of 'beat cop' you are describing?? Hell no. They sent 2 a-hole HP's. Is our state run by liberals? I think not.

How does your senseless story apply to a situation where there is a large influx of people due to an event? How will Trump's stop and frisk plan be carried out there?

You can, and obviously will, "what if" till the last lib dies and the problem is addressed and not diverted. This isn't like voting where preventing one person from voting is reason to allow hundreds to commit fraud by maintaining the loosest possible rules in registration etc. People are dying because of idiotic rules handcuffing police from culling the miscreants from the streets and confiscating their weapons.

I love how you guys rally around cops when it fits your political narrative. I'd love to see how you treat them if you blow hot once. The area I grew up in was considered to be somewhat 'out of control' by the state a few years back. Do you suppose they sent the type of 'beat cop' you are describing?? Hell no. They sent 2 a-hole HP's. Is our state run by liberals? I think not.

How does your senseless story apply to a situation where there is a large influx of people due to an event? How will Trump's stop and frisk plan be carried out there?

You can, and obviously will, "what if" till the last lib dies and the problem is addressed and not diverted. This isn't like voting where preventing one person from voting is reason to allow hundreds to commit fraud by maintaining the loosest possible rules in registration etc. People are dying because of idiotic rules handcuffing police from culling the miscreants from the streets and confiscating their weapons.

You mean like not being able to use surveillance systems on the general public that could be very effective in weeding out those who intend to do us harm?

Contrary to Lester "Don't Give Up Your Day Job" Holt's assertion in last night's debate, stop & frisk is not unconstitutional. The Warren Court, which was one of the most liberal of Supreme Courts, held in Terry vs Ohio (8-1) that stop & frisk was an exception to the exclusionary rule which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures for gathering evidence but not searches and seizures for other purposes like the prevention of crime or personal protection of police.

The right to frisk someone has to be based on "specific and articulable fact", not a hunch. Not a gut feeling. Certainly not skin color. So again, what was he basing his stop and frisk program on?

You forgot to include ""taken together with rational inferences from those facts", and the suspicion must be associated with the specific individual." in your cut and paste from Wikipedia.

Regardless, criteria was never discussed by Trump in the debate. He only stated that stop and frisk took guns away from criminals, was very successful in NY and was responsible for the drop in crime in NY under Giuliani (and Bloomberg). It was Holt who claimed that stop and frisk was unconstitutional. From Lester inserting himself into the debate and channeling Candy Crowley:

"Your two minutes have expired but I do want to follow up. Stop and Frisk was ruled unconstitutional in New York because it largely singled out black and Hispanic young men."

Did Floyd vs City, which was only a US District Court ruling, overturn Terry vs Ohio? Absolutely not. Floyd only determined that the NYPD implemented stop and frisk in a racially discriminatory manner and imposed remedial reforms on the NYPD. Stop and frisk is still constitutional contrary to legal eagle Holt's faulty reasoning. Also consider that Judge Scheindlin’s ruling was stayed by an appeals court which also criticized her actions concerning the case and removed her from it, details which also seem to have been misplaced by Lester Holt.

Floyd vs City and Terry vs Ohio are two completely different beasts, and it boils down to the phrase I quoted in my "Wiki cut and paste"(says the guy who cites Wikipedia in his own posts ). Clear and articulable fact. What clear and articulable facts did they have in the NY cases? Obviously none.

Trump has had plenty of time to offer direction, and has chosen not to. The only sensible conclusion is that he was referring to the same racial profiling that was found to be unconstitutional. Move along, there's nothing to see here.

Dr. Jones wrote:Floyd vs City and Terry vs Ohio are two completely different beasts, and it boils down to the phrase I quoted in my "Wiki cut and paste"(says the guy who cites Wikipedia in his own posts ). Clear and articulable fact. What clear and articulable facts did they have in the NY cases? Obviously none.

Trump has had plenty of time to offer direction, and has chosen not to. The only sensible conclusion is that he was referring to the same racial profiling that was found to be unconstitutional. Move along, there's nothing to see here.

Dr. Jones wrote:Floyd vs City and Terry vs Ohio are two completely different beasts, and it boils down to the phrase I quoted in my "Wiki cut and paste"(says the guy who cites Wikipedia in his own posts ). Clear and articulable fact. What clear and articulable facts did they have in the NY cases? Obviously none.

Trump has had plenty of time to offer direction, and has chosen not to. The only sensible conclusion is that he was referring to the same racial profiling that was found to be unconstitutional. Move along, there's nothing to see here.

Nope, they are not. Terry vs Ohio is the controlling court case on stop and frisk (and has been since 1968) since it was decided by the SCOTUS (8-1 by one of the most liberal Supreme Courts ever, ever to preside). Floyd only affects NYC and it's unconstitutionality finding concerned the supposed racial profiling associated with S&F. It certainly didn't put an end to S&F since the NYPD conducted nearly 23,000 such stops in 2015.

The Floyd ruling and ordered remedial action uses a population benchmark for the measurement of police racial profiling in stop and frisk. If police stops didn’t match population ratios, they are deemed unconstitutional. Floyd completely ignores the huge disparity in crime perpetrators in NYC. Blacks commit approximately 75% of all shootings, although they are only 23% of the population. Latino shootings add another 23% which in total account for nearly 98% of shootings in New York City. Whites comprise 34% of NYC's population but only commit 2% of the shootings The elephant in the room is that Blacks and Latinos account for the vast majority of shootings in NYC but Floyd is now insisting that S&F be either pared back to reflect the racial benchmarks or increased policing on a segment of the population that demonstrates a lesser need for such policing.

Dr. Jones wrote:Floyd vs City and Terry vs Ohio are two completely different beasts, and it boils down to the phrase I quoted in my "Wiki cut and paste"(says the guy who cites Wikipedia in his own posts ). Clear and articulable fact. What clear and articulable facts did they have in the NY cases? Obviously none.

Trump has had plenty of time to offer direction, and has chosen not to. The only sensible conclusion is that he was referring to the same racial profiling that was found to be unconstitutional. Move along, there's nothing to see here.

Dr. Jones wrote:Floyd vs City and Terry vs Ohio are two completely different beasts, and it boils down to the phrase I quoted in my "Wiki cut and paste"(says the guy who cites Wikipedia in his own posts ). Clear and articulable fact. What clear and articulable facts did they have in the NY cases? Obviously none.

Trump has had plenty of time to offer direction, and has chosen not to. The only sensible conclusion is that he was referring to the same racial profiling that was found to be unconstitutional. Move along, there's nothing to see here.

Nope, they are not. Terry vs Ohio is the controlling court case on stop and frisk (and has been since 1968) since it was decided by the SCOTUS (8-1 by one of the most liberal Supreme Courts ever, ever to preside). Floyd only affects NYC and it's unconstitutionality finding concerned the supposed racial profiling associated with S&F. It certainly didn't put an end to S&F since the NYPD conducted nearly 23,000 such stops in 2015.

The Floyd ruling and ordered remedial action uses a population benchmark for the measurement of police racial profiling in stop and frisk. If police stops didn’t match population ratios, they are deemed unconstitutional. Floyd completely ignores the huge disparity in crime perpetrators in NYC. Blacks commit approximately 75% of all shootings, although they are only 23% of the population. Latino shootings add another 23% which in total account for nearly 98% of shootings in New York City. Whites comprise 34% of NYC's population but only commit 2% of the shootings The elephant in the room is that Blacks and Latinos account for the vast majority of shootings in NYC but Floyd is now insisting that S&F be either pared back to reflect the racial benchmarks or increased policing on a segment of the population that demonstrates a lesser need for such policing.

No, no, no... The Terry vs Ohio was rooted in FACT. Floyd vs City was rooted in RACIAL PROFILING. Completely different. Which is precisely why it was ruled unconstitutional.

Dr. Jones wrote:Floyd vs City and Terry vs Ohio are two completely different beasts, and it boils down to the phrase I quoted in my "Wiki cut and paste"(says the guy who cites Wikipedia in his own posts ). Clear and articulable fact. What clear and articulable facts did they have in the NY cases? Obviously none.

Trump has had plenty of time to offer direction, and has chosen not to. The only sensible conclusion is that he was referring to the same racial profiling that was found to be unconstitutional. Move along, there's nothing to see here.

Nope, they are not. Terry vs Ohio is the controlling court case on stop and frisk (and has been since 1968) since it was decided by the SCOTUS (8-1 by one of the most liberal Supreme Courts ever, ever to preside). Floyd only affects NYC and it's unconstitutionality finding concerned the supposed racial profiling associated with S&F. It certainly didn't put an end to S&F since the NYPD conducted nearly 23,000 such stops in 2015.

The Floyd ruling and ordered remedial action uses a population benchmark for the measurement of police racial profiling in stop and frisk. If police stops didn’t match population ratios, they are deemed unconstitutional. Floyd completely ignores the huge disparity in crime perpetrators in NYC. Blacks commit approximately 75% of all shootings, although they are only 23% of the population. Latino shootings add another 23% which in total account for nearly 98% of shootings in New York City. Whites comprise 34% of NYC's population but only commit 2% of the shootings The elephant in the room is that Blacks and Latinos account for the vast majority of shootings in NYC but Floyd is now insisting that S&F be either pared back to reflect the racial benchmarks or increased policing on a segment of the population that demonstrates a lesser need for such policing.

No, no, no... The Terry vs Ohio was rooted in FACT. Floyd vs City was rooted in RACIAL PROFILING. Completely different. Which is precisely why it was ruled unconstitutional.

Not according to SJWs who claim that Terry v Ohio is where government sanctioned racial profiling was authorized. And once again if S&F was ruled unconstitutional, how is it that the NYPD still can use it with impunity.

Dr. Jones wrote:Floyd vs City and Terry vs Ohio are two completely different beasts, and it boils down to the phrase I quoted in my "Wiki cut and paste"(says the guy who cites Wikipedia in his own posts ). Clear and articulable fact. What clear and articulable facts did they have in the NY cases? Obviously none.

Trump has had plenty of time to offer direction, and has chosen not to. The only sensible conclusion is that he was referring to the same racial profiling that was found to be unconstitutional. Move along, there's nothing to see here.

Nope, they are not. Terry vs Ohio is the controlling court case on stop and frisk (and has been since 1968) since it was decided by the SCOTUS (8-1 by one of the most liberal Supreme Courts ever, ever to preside). Floyd only affects NYC and it's unconstitutionality finding concerned the supposed racial profiling associated with S&F. It certainly didn't put an end to S&F since the NYPD conducted nearly 23,000 such stops in 2015.

The Floyd ruling and ordered remedial action uses a population benchmark for the measurement of police racial profiling in stop and frisk. If police stops didn’t match population ratios, they are deemed unconstitutional. Floyd completely ignores the huge disparity in crime perpetrators in NYC. Blacks commit approximately 75% of all shootings, although they are only 23% of the population. Latino shootings add another 23% which in total account for nearly 98% of shootings in New York City. Whites comprise 34% of NYC's population but only commit 2% of the shootings The elephant in the room is that Blacks and Latinos account for the vast majority of shootings in NYC but Floyd is now insisting that S&F be either pared back to reflect the racial benchmarks or increased policing on a segment of the population that demonstrates a lesser need for such policing.

No, no, no... The Terry vs Ohio was rooted in FACT. Floyd vs City was rooted in RACIAL PROFILING. Completely different. Which is precisely why it was ruled unconstitutional.

Not according to SJWs who claim that Terry v Ohio is where government sanctioned racial profiling was authorized. And once again if S&F was ruled unconstitutional, how is it that the NYPD still can use it with impunity.

It was allowed to be continued in a manner that followed much stricter guidelines in regard to an individual's constitutional rights. However Trump has referred time and time again to the type of SaF "We used to do in New York" He refers also to expanding the practice. Why would you have to expand a practice that is already widely used across across the country? He is also very critical of the process by which the type of SaF he is proposing was ended in '13. Obviously he is referring to the type of SaF that has been found to be unconstitutional and, as I've said, we are talking about two completely different things.

Yeah, there will always be a few gullible enough to give the evil cretins a soapbox to preach from. But for every enabler, there are thank goodness several dozen of us who are willing to kick the soapbox out from under the evil cretins and then shove it up their ass. Brings a tear to you eye doesn't it?

Jammer wrote:Yeah, there will always be a few gullible enough to give the evil cretins a soapbox to preach from. But for every enabler, there are thank goodness several dozen of us who are willing to kick the soapbox out from under the evil cretins and then shove it up their ass. Brings a tear to you eye doesn't it?

Several dozen ? Where ? Certainly not here on a liberal forum like Just Braying It.

A perfect example of why people should never ever treat these evil cretins like humans, they are far from it. There should be no place in a civil society for these repressive liberals, they are PURE EVIL. It is time to drive liberalism off the face of the earth. Otherwise the entire human race is doomed. Repressive liberals are disgusting scum.

Shortie's Ex wrote:My goodness, this has been quite a game of Google footsie, hasn't it ? Thank you gentlemen, for coming to a liberal forum like Just Braying It to play Google footsie with us liberals.

Thank you very much. I enjoy schooling dumb ass Liberals on politics, law, history and the human condition. Remember, Google, like a hammer, is only a tool. Owning a hammer doesn't make you a carpenter, just as typing words into Google doesn't make you intelligent. You need to be able to comprehend and critically appraise what is found. People like yourself and Fcukstik and the Liberal ilk fail when all you offer up is unintelligible and incoherent arguments constructed from the scraps you've gleaned from your Google searches. Remember, if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.